The Inhumanity of Forcing a Loving Parent Into Supervised Visitation While an Abuser Has Custody
Imagine a safe, loving parent – often the primary caregiver – being treated like a danger to their own child. In far too many cases, family courts grant full custody to an abusive parent while the protective parent (usually the one who suffered domestic violence) is only allowed to see their child under supervision. This scenario is not a rare anomaly; advocates estimate 58,000 children in the U.S. each year are court-ordered into custody or unsupervised visitation with a dangerous abuser. The results are often tragic: in one two-year period, 175 children were murdered by abusive fathers during court-ordered contact, enabled by well-meaning but grievously misguided court decisions. Such outcomes send a chilling message and inflict profound psychological damage on both the children and the loving parent. This article takes a deep dive into the harmful effects of this practice – on the child, on the victimized parent, and on our society’s moral compass – and why no human being should be expected to endure this inhumane situation. It will also argue that, when credible abuse has occurred, no contact is better than supervised contact with the abuser, and urge courts to end these outrageous practices.
Family courts often demand that survivors of abuse behave as if the abuse “never happened” – appearing calm and cooperative – or risk being disbelieved and punished. This cruel expectation forces victims to suppress their trauma, and sets the stage for unjust custody outcomes.
A Damaging Message to the Child
When a court places a child in the custody of their abusive parent and restricts the safe, loving parent to supervised visitation, it sends a terribly confusing and damaging message to the child. On one level, the child may interpret that the abusive parent’s behavior has been condoned or trivialized by authority figures. The victimized parent – the one who tried to protect the child or themselves – is treated like a suspect, while the abuser is rewarded with full parental control. This upside-down scenario can undermine a child’s fundamental trust in justice and safety. Research confirms that children in this situation often suffer negative psychological impacts. In a recent scoping review of domestic-violence custody cases, scholars documented a litany of harm to children placed with an abusive father: anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), nightmares, bed-wetting, declining school performance, low self-esteem, self-harm, and even suicidal thoughts or attempts. These children live in a state of fear and confusion, forced to maintain a relationship with the very person who hurt them or their loved one.
Crucially, even supervised visitation with an abusive parent may fail to protect children from psychological trauma. Monitors can prevent physical violence during a visit, but they cannot erase the fear or undo the emotional abuse a batterer inflicts. Abusers often find subtle ways to intimidate or manipulate children under supervision. For example, one case file described a father who used a visit to tell his three children “he would have to kill their mother,” an outrageous threat that left the children terrified. As domestic violence experts Lundy Bancroft and Jay Silverman note, such tactics during visitation undermine the child’s sense of security with the non-abusive parent. The child learns to live in constant anxiety, worried about the safety of their loving parent and themselves. In effect, the court-ordered contact becomes an extension of the abuser’s control – a continuation of the abuse by other means, with the court’s stamp of approval.
Moreover, removing children from their primary attachment figure (usually the safe parent who was the main caregiver) is deeply harmful in itself. Developmental psychologists emphasize that a young child’s bond with their primary caregiver is critical for mental health. Disrupting that bond can cause long-term problems. Children separated from their primary attachment figure are more likely to suffer depression, low self-esteem, and even suicidal behavior later in life. These risks, experts warn, far outweigh any speculative “benefit” a court thinks it is providing by giving an alleged abuser custody. In short, the child experiences the loss of a nurturing parent as a form of trauma – a wound made worse by the knowledge that the safe parent is being forced to prove their “innocence” under supervision. Many children in these cases feel anger, guilt, and confusion, and some, once grown, have spoken out about the pain they endured. A group of such survivors, sometimes called the Courageous Kids, have recounted “tremendous pain and suffering” during childhood and lasting scars into adulthood after being forced to live with an abuser and kept away from a loving parent. Devastatingly, some children do not survive at all – whether through direct homicide by the abuser, or through later self-destructive behaviors stemming from their trauma.
Psychological Toll on the Protective Parent
For the loving parent who is relegated to supervised visits, the experience is nothing short of soul-crushing. Typically, this parent is the one who tried to protect the child from abuse, only to be disbelieved or penalized by the court. Being treated like a potential threat to one’s own child – having visits monitored by staff as if you were a criminal – is a profound injustice that inflicts deep psychological wounds. Studies show that domestic violence survivors often experience the family court process itself as a form of secondary victimization. The trauma they endured at the hands of their abuser is compounded by trauma from the legal system’s actions. In a sense, the abusive partner has “swapped his fists for the system,” using courts and custody as weapons to continue coercive control. Protective mothers (and fathers, in some cases) describe the nightmare of reliving the abuse through the courts: being disbelieved, silenced, and forced into proximity with their abuser again and again.
One comprehensive review of research found that engaging with family court exacerbated trauma symptoms for abused mothers, often resulting in long-term PTSD, depression, and intense grief. These mothers reported “intense grief not only [from] losing contact with their children but also [from] being unable to protect their children while in the care of their father.” They lived with constant fear for their kids’ safety and a gnawing helplessness at being forced to facilitate the children’s contact with the abuser. It is hard to overstate the pain of this situation: a loving parent who has done nothing wrong (indeed, who often heroically survived abuse) is punished by losing the very children they sought to keep safe. They must say goodbye after each short supervised visit, often in a dreary visitation center with someone watching their every move, then hand the child back to the abuser. This cycle inflicts a unique form of anguish. Many protective parents describe feeling powerless, shattered, and betrayed by a system that was supposed to protect the innocent. Mental health professionals note that the ongoing fear and lack of control in these circumstances can significantly worsen trauma-related conditions. The parent is essentially trapped in a state of limbo: they have to maintain contact with their perpetrator (through mandated co-parenting, exchanges, or court reviews), meaning the terror and stress never fully abate.
In fact, being forced into cordial co-parenting with one’s abuser is a cruel expectation that no survivor should have to meet. Advocates have observed that courts often expect the victim to behave as if the abuse never happened – to stay calm, cooperative, and unemotional – or risk being deemed “unfriendly” or “unstable.” If the traumatized parent shows anger, fear, or refuses to interact with their abuser, the court might accuse them of alienating the child or being mentally unwell. This dynamic punishes normal reactions to trauma. As one survivor put it, “You don’t just have to survive – you have to look like you didn’t suffer”, because the moment a victim breaks down or speaks up, they’re labeled “hysterical” or “not credible.” The result is that many battered parents feel they are walking on eggshells in court, hiding their trauma, which only adds to their psychological burden. It is an inhumane catch-22: to keep any contact with their child, they must endure ongoing abuse (through forced contact and legal harassment) and show no sign of distress while doing so. Little wonder that some loving parents have likened this experience to torture and have lost faith in the justice system entirely. Indeed, researchers found that a number of abused mothers eventually “gave up” on the system after feeling marginalized and realizing the courts were not going to help. No human being – and certainly no devoted parent – should be expected to endure such psychological torment.
Why “No Contact” Is Better Than Supervised Contact in Abuse Cases
When one parent has been credibly found to be abusive – whether through domestic violence or direct child abuse – courts should not force children to continue relationships with that parent out of a misguided notion of “balance.” In these cases, no contact is often safer and healthier than supervised contact. Supervised visitation is typically intended as a risk mitigation tool, a way to allow a parent with some red flags to still see the child under monitoring. But in cases of severe abuse (e.g. a parent who has sexually molested or brutally assaulted the child or the other parent), even supervised visits can be harmful and retraumatizing. The child often feels extreme anxiety before and during each supervised visit – knowing they must see the person who hurt them – and may suffer nightmares, regression, or panic afterwards. The loving parent, meanwhile, is put in the agonizing position of having to send their child off to see the abuser or even facilitate those visits. As noted, many protective parents report that being ordered to hand over their crying, fearful children for visitation with an abuser is one of the most painful and damaging things they’ve ever experienced. For the victim of domestic violence, having to regularly interact with their former abuser at exchanges or through co-parenting discussions is a direct continuation of the cycle of power and control. In short, supervised visitation in these contexts can become another venue for abuse, rather than a truly safe solution.
Critically, supervised visitation does not erase the threat of further harm. If an abuser is sufficiently dangerous or unrepentant that they cannot be trusted unsupervised, allowing them any access to the child may simply be prolonging the danger. Many experts argue that when a parent has demonstrated they will harm or traumatize the child, the focus must shift to protecting the child’s well-being above all else, not preserving the abuser’s access. In practice, this could mean suspending or terminating the abusive parent’s visitation rights entirely. For instance, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges advises that even supervised visits should be halted if there are ongoing threats, rule violations, or indications the child is not safe. In cases of sexual abuse, most jurisdictions recognize the severity by allowing courts to terminate parental rights or indefinitely suspend contact. Continuing to force a child to see a parent who sexually abused them – even with a supervisor present – can cause intense trauma. The child may feel unsafe and betrayed every time, knowing the system is still giving their abuser access to them. No contact spares the child this repeated trauma and affirms that what happened was wrong. It also sends a clear societal message that certain lines cannot be crossed: if you sexually or physically abuse your child, you forfeit the privilege of parenthood. As the user who prompted this deep dive bluntly put it, “if a parent has sexually abused a child they should be eliminated from society – not given further contact.” Short of literal banishment, this means such a parent should face criminal consequences and absolutely no further contact with the child. The same goes for severe physical abusers; they should not be allowed to inflict more physical or emotional damage.
From the child’s perspective, having a voice in these decisions is crucial. Children who are old enough to express their wishes often do not want contact with an abusive parent, and forcing it upon them can compound their trauma. Yet, in many custody cases, a child’s desperate pleas to not see the abuser are dismissed or attributed to the influence of the protective parent. This only adds to the child’s sense of powerless frustration. Giving the child a choice in what contact, if any, they have with an abusive parent is essential to their psychological healing. It validates their reality and agency – something the abuser sought to strip away. Mental health experts note that being heard and having some control can greatly help survivors of abuse (including child survivors) recover a sense of safety. On the contrary, forcing a child into unwanted interaction with an abuser “for their own good” is a grave misstep; as we have seen, it often does far more harm than good. In sum, when abuse has occurred, supervised visitation should not be a default compromise – often, the humane and truly protective choice is no visitation at all. The focus must be on the child’s safety and emotional well-being, even if that means one parent is removed from the picture entirely.
The Family Court’s Failings and the Call for Change
How do such outrageous custody outcomes come about in the first place? Unfortunately, they stem from systemic flaws in the way family courts handle abuse allegations and prioritize parental rights over child safety. Courts are often reluctant to completely cut off a parent, even an abusive one, due to ideals of co-parenting and “children need both parents.” In theory, these ideals are noble; in practice, abusers exploit them. Abusers often use the legal system as a weapon, engaging in “custody stalking” or litigation abuse to wear down the victim and maintain control. They may falsely accuse the protective parent of being unfit or of alienating the child, flipping the script so that the victim parent appears to be the problem. Disturbingly, courts sometimes believe these claims or default to a “neutral” stance that ends up favoring the abuser. As victim advocate Barry Goldstein observes, many custody courts fail to understand that treating an abusive parent and a safe parent as “equally good” is actually bias in favor of the abuser. In attempts to be neutral or fair, courts may discount the history of abuse and instead seize on minor issues (like a mother’s justifiable anger or a child’s reluctance) as reasons to question the safe parent. This leads to extreme and harmful decisions – for example, giving custody to an alleged abuser and limiting a safe, loving mother to supervised visitation. PAS is often invoked to discredit mothers who report abuse. There is no scientific basis for choosing an alleged abuser over a protective parent simply because the latter is “angry” or the child is hesitant with the abuser. Yet courts have allowed these ideas to override clear evidence of risk.
Additionally, there is a troubling financial and institutional incentive structure that can reinforce these bad outcomes. Goldstein and others have written about a “cottage industry” of court-aligned professionals – custody evaluators, guardians ad litem (GALs), therapists – who make hefty fees from prolonged custody fights. Many of these professionals advertise as “neutral” but in fact often side with abusive fathers (sometimes under a “fathers’ rights” ideology) because that side tends to have more resources to pay, especially if the abuser was the primary breadwinner. The result is a biased team influencing the court, downplaying abuse and recommending visitation or custody to the abuser. Each supervised visitation center, therapist, and evaluator involved means more billable hours and state funds. As cynical as it sounds, prolonging the conflict can mean profit for those providing “reunification” services – giving a perverse incentive to continue contact even when it’s harmful. Whistleblowers have described how some family court actors “drag out” cases for financial gain, all while a loving parent and child suffer through months or years of forced separation and supervised meetings. This systemic problem adds another layer of outrage: the misery of families is monetized. Taxpayer dollars (through child support enforcement funds, etc.) and family savings alike get funneled into an apparatus that, in the worst cases, facilitates ongoing abuse rather than stopping it.
It’s important to note that not every supervised visitation program or court professional behaves unethically; supervised visitation, in a properly run and truly safety-focused way, can be a useful tool in appropriate cases. However, the current system often fails to distinguish truly dangerous abusers from normal parents, or worse, reverses the roles. The courts must start prioritizing evidence-based risk assessment and the safety of the child and the non-abusive parent above all else. If a judge is faced with allegations that one parent has a history of domestic violence or child abuse, the default should never be to award that parent custody and put the other on supervised visitation. Yet reforms have been slow. Judges sometimes treat cases where a mother alleges abuse as “high-conflict divorces” or assume the mother is exaggerating, leading to deadly errors. As Goldstein points out, many judges still have minimal training in domestic violence dynamics and can be manipulated by abusers’ narratives. Even well-intentioned judges have been guilty of minimizing abuse (especially if it’s not a criminal conviction) and overvaluing the concept of two-parent involvement. This has to change. Court professionals need extensive training on post-separation abuse, coercive control, and trauma-informed practices. They also need to learn from the voices of survivors and adult children who lived through these ordeals, rather than dismissing them as “anecdotes.” The data and testimony are clear: the current practices are putting children in danger and causing lifelong harm.
Conclusion: End the Inhumane Practice – Prioritize Safety and Healing
Forcing a safe, loving parent into supervised visits while an abuser holds custody is a gross miscarriage of justice and a human rights violation. It is inhumane for the parent, who is subjected to ongoing humiliation and trauma, and it is devastating for the child, who is effectively being forced to live a lie under the control of their abuser. Courts must recognize that childhood isn’t a do-over – the damage done by severing a healthy parent–child bond, and by exposing a child to further abuse, cannot be easily undone later. As one expert starkly stated, “when the mother is safe, decisions that give custody to the alleged abuser and limit her to supervised visitation are virtually always wrong,” because the harm of denying children a normal relationship with their primary loving parent is greater than any supposed benefit. These wrongful decisions have contributed to trauma, dysfunction, and even an increase in domestic violence homicides in our society. They also erode public faith in the family court system’s fairness and competence.
It is time for bold change. Supervised visitation centers should not be a crutch that enables abusers to keep abusing. If a parent has been found to sexually abuse their child, that parent should have no access to the child – the priority must be to protect the victim and allow them to heal, not to gradually reintroduce a predator into their life. If a parent has physically abused or terrorized their child, they should likewise be kept away until and unless the child, on their own terms, decides they want contact (which may be never). Children deserve the right to grow up safe from harm and fear. They also deserve the freedom to love and be loved by the safe parent without interference. Family courts and child protection agencies desperately need to step up to end this barbaric pattern of “awarding” custody to abusers and punishing victims. This means listening to experts in trauma and DV, implementing the recommendations of studies and commissions, and above all, listening to the children and the protective parents.
No mother or father who has done no harm should have to prove their innocence in a supervised visitation room while the person who choked or beat them gets unfettered custody. No child should have to hug the parent who molested them because a court order says so. The outrageous practice of flipping custody to abusers and sidelining safe parents must stop. In its place, we need a culture in family courts of true accountability for abusers and unwavering protection for victims. Justice demands that we not force survivors to “perform being unaffected” by abuse in order to be believed – instead, the courts must become better at recognizing abuse and responding with appropriate seriousness. Until these changes happen, countless families will continue to be traumatized by the very system meant to safeguard them. We owe it to the children and loving parents caught in this nightmare to reform the system now. No child’s life should be the price of our courts’ learning curve. The message to send to children is that abuse is unacceptable and that their safety and happiness come first – and the way to send that message is to stop court-ordered abuse, end forced supervised visitation in these scenarios, and ensure that abusers face consequences, not custody.
Sources:
1. Wilde, S. (2023). The psychological impact on mothers who have experienced domestic violence when navigating the family court system: a scoping review. Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody & Child Development, 2023. (Full text available via PubMed Central)
2. Goldstein, B. (2019). Extreme Custody Decisions That Risk Lives. BarryGoldstein.net. (Advocacy article by domestic violence expert Barry Goldstein)
3. Goldstein, B. (2018). Crisis in the Custody Court System. BarryGoldstein.net.
4. O’Sullivan, C., et al. (2006). Supervised and Unsupervised Parental Access in Domestic Violence Cases: Court Orders and Consequences. U.S. Dept. of Justice study, NCJ 213712.
5. Zeoli, A., et al. (2013). Post-Separation Abuse of Women and their Children: Boundary-setting and Family Court Utilization among Victimized Mothers. Journal of Family Violence, 28(6), 547–560.
6. Bancroft, L. & Silverman, J. (2002). The Batterer as Parent: Addressing the Impact of Domestic Violence on Family Dynamics. (Referenced in O’Sullivan et al. regarding harm to children during visitation)
7. National Domestic Violence Hotline & DomesticShelters.org – various articles on supervised visitation and custody in domestic abuse cases (for general context, not directly cited above).
